Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Measurement-Induced Local Dephasing Generates Symmetrically Located Entangled Sites in a Fermionic Tight-Binding Lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Central-site dephasing alone drives an odd fermionic lattice into a steady state with long-range entangled mirror pairs.

desk verdict Single-particle central-site dephasing results are solid and likely correct; the many-fermion enhancement claim rests on an unproved and, as stated, invalid factorization argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07876 v2 pith:63QPCA7H submitted 2024-12-10 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Aitijhya Saha , Srijani Das , Debraj Rakshit This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas PACS 03.67.Mn03.65.Yz
keywords dephasingentanglementgenerationfermionictight-bindinglatticesteadystatestrongsymmetryX-statelong-rangeLindbladequation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a single dephasing source placed at the center of an odd-sized fermionic tight-binding chain is sufficient to generate genuine entanglement between every pair of mirror-symmetric sites, no matter how far apart they are. Starting from an even-parity initial state, the dephasing drives the system to a unique steady state in which the density matrix has a cross-like structure: each site $i$ is coherently superposed with its mirror site $N+1-i$, while all other coherences decay. This is surprising because dephasing normally destroys quantum coherence; here the reflection symmetry protects only the mirror coherences. The paper also shows that the amount of entanglement between each mirror pair increases when more fermions are added, reaching a maximum when all even-parity single-particle modes are occupied, and that the pairs survive weak perturbations.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on two strong symmetries: the reflection operator $\hat{R}$ about the central site and the hidden symmetry $\hat{C} = -\frac{1}{2} + \sum_i \hat{f}^{\dagger}_i \hat{f}_{N+1-i}$. Both commute with the hopping Hamiltonian and with the dephasing generator, the central-site number operator, so the Liouvillian splits into independent sectors and each sector has a unique steady state. In the even-parity sector, the steady-state equations plus the asserted disappearance of all non-mirror off-diagonal elements reduce the density matrix to the X-state form above. The entanglement proof works through the Peres–Horodecki criterion on the two-site reduced density matrix, and the amount of entanglement is quantified by concurrence.

What would settle it

Solve the Lindblad equation exactly (or numerically to high precision) for a five- or seven-site chain from a generic even-parity initial state and test whether the long-time density matrix has exactly zero entries in all non-mirror off-diagonal positions, for instance $\rho_{14}$ or $\rho_{23}$ for $N=5$; any residual non-mirror coherence would disprove the claimed X-state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an exact formula for the long-time steady state of an odd-sized chain under central-site dephasing: $\hat{\rho}^{\infty}_{N} = \frac{1}{N+1} \sum_i (|i\rangle\langle i| + |i\rangle\langle N+1-i|)$. The paper establishes this by solving the Lindblad steady-state equations in the even-parity sector, where reflection symmetry forces diagonal and mirror anti-diagonal elements to be equal, and by verifying numerically for larger $N$. It then proves, using the Peres–Horodecki criterion, that the reduced state of any mirror pair $i$ and $N+1-i$ has a negative partial transpose, so the pair is entangled for all finite $N$. In the multi-fermion case the correlation matrix of the steady state is simply $\mathcal{N}$ times the single-particle correlation matrix, so the pairwise concurrence grows with particle number and becomes unity for the dark state that fills all even-parity modes. The paper further claims that the entangled pairs are robust to weak quasi-periodic potentials and nearest-neighbor interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the assertion, given without proof, that in the steady state all off-diagonal density-matrix elements vanish except those between mirror-symmetric sites; if any other coherence survived, the X-state form and the predicted entanglement distribution would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any even-parity initial state converges to the same unique steady state, so the long-range entangled pairs are generated without fine-tuned preparation.
  • The steady-state correlations are independent of the hopping amplitude and dephasing strength, giving a parameter-free target state.
  • Multi-fermion filling amplifies the mirror-pair concurrence monotonically, reaching maximal entanglement for the closed even-parity shell.
  • Closed-shell initial states are dark states of the dephasing, so their entangled pairs persist indefinitely without decoherence.
  • Weak symmetry-breaking perturbations, both a quasi-periodic potential and nearest-neighbor interactions, leave the entangled pairs largely intact.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the X-state form survives for larger $N$, the same symmetry argument should work for any local dissipator that commutes with reflection and acts only at the fixed point of the reflection, suggesting generalizations to spin chains or other geometries.
  • The parameter-free nature of the steady state implies an experimental signature that is easy to check: the mirror-pair correlation $\langle \hat{f}^{\dagger}_i \hat{f}_{N+1-i} \rangle$ should equal $1/(N+1)$ regardless of the hopping rate or dephasing rate, a prediction that goes beyond the specific examples shown.
  • The paper's trap-arrest protocol points to a natural extension: optimizing the switching time could freeze the system at near-maximal pairwise entanglement, and the same idea might work in finite-size interacting systems where the strong symmetries are only approximate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies an odd-sized fermionic tight-binding chain with dephasing only at the central site. For single-particle initial states in the even-parity sector, the authors find, analytically for N=3 and N=5 and numerically for larger N, that the Lindblad evolution converges to an X-state with equal coherent superpositions between mirror-symmetric sites i and N+1−i. They then generalize to N fermions using a hidden strong symmetry C, proposing that the steady-state one-body correlation matrix is N times the single-particle one, which enhances the concurrence of symmetric pairs with increasing particle number. Appendices provide the N=3 dynamical solution, N=5 steady-state equations, a PPT-based entanglement proof, and numerical robustness checks against quasiperiodic disorder and nearest-neighbor interactions.

Significance. The single-particle X-state result is a clean, exactly solvable example of measurement-induced long-range entanglement and is well supported for N=3 and N=5 by exact calculation and for N=9 by numerics. The conceptual use of the hidden symmetry C to select sectors is sound and appropriately referenced. However, the multi-fermion enhancement—the distinctive claim behind Fig. 2—is not established by the argument given; the factorization step used to obtain ⟨f_i^† f_j⟩_∞^N = N⟨f_i^† f_j⟩_∞^sp is invalid for one-body fermionic operators. If a correct proof can be supplied, the result would be a significant addition to reservoir engineering and symmetry-protected entanglement; as it stands, the general-N claim is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II (multi-fermion generalization)] The derivation of the multi-fermion correlation matrix in Section II contains a load-bearing technical error. The text states that 'as a many-body operator O in ⊗_i H_i can be expressed as ⊗_i O_i, the expectation ... turns out to be Σ_i Tr[O_i ρ_∞] = N⟨O⟩_∞^sp'. This reasoning does not apply to f_i^† f_j, which is a one-body operator acting on two different sites and is not a tensor product of single-site operators, nor is the N-fermion steady state a product state. To justify ⟨f_i^† f_j⟩_∞^N = N⟨f_i^† f_j⟩_∞^sp one must prove that the steady state in the ν_o=0 sector is the normalized projector onto all Slater determinants built from even-parity single-particle modes and then compute its one-body density matrix. Without such a proof, the N-fold enhancement of concurrence in Fig. 2 and the headline claim are unsupported.
  2. [Section II (general-N X-state)] The general-N single-particle steady state is asserted rather than proved. In Section II the authors write 'Corroborated by the fact that, apart from the diagonal and anti-diagonal matrix elements, rest of the off-diagonal elements vanish', but no argument is given for this structural property or for uniqueness of the steady state within the even-parity sector. The explicit N=3 and N=5 solutions verify the pattern but do not establish it for arbitrary odd N. A rigorous proof could follow from the strong-symmetry decomposition and the irreducibility of the relevant Liouvillian sector; as written, the general formula ρ_∞^N = 1/(N+1)Σ_i(|i⟩⟨i|+|i⟩⟨N+1−i|) rests on an unproven ansatz.
  3. [Section II (steady-state uniqueness and sectors)] The uniqueness statement for the many-body steady state is not supported. The paper claims that for the class of (N+1)/2 C_N initial states |Ψ^k_N⟩_in there exists a unique many-body steady state, but no proof is given that the Lindblad dynamics is irreducible within the relevant C-symmetry sector and particle-number sector. Since the dimension of the even-parity ν_o=0 sector grows combinatorially, uniqueness is not automatic from the single-particle analysis and needs an explicit argument or a direct numerical check for small N.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (3)] Equation (3) uses L in the index f_{L+1−i}, but L is not defined in the text; it should be N (or the notation should be set consistently).
  2. [Figure 2 and surrounding text] The symbol N is used both for the system size and for the number of particles, which is confusing (e.g., in Fig. 2 and in the sentence 'For system-size, N, and N particles'); please introduce a separate symbol such as n for particle number.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The functions f(γ) and g(γ) contain cosh and sinh of √(−128+γ^2), which is imaginary for γ<8√2; the expressions should be rewritten with explicit cos and sin branches for clarity.
  4. [General steady-state expression] The summation in the general steady-state expression ρ_∞^N = 1/(N+1)Σ_i(|i⟩⟨i|+|i⟩⟨N+1−i|) should specify the range of i to avoid apparent double counting of mirror pairs.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'govorned', 'Linbladian', 'statdy-state', 'charge-denity-wave', 'symmetrically localted', and 'theretic'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the steady state is solved from the Lindblad equation and the hidden-symmetry commutators are verified in the paper; self-citations are background, and the many-fermion factorization issue is a correctness gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation starts from the Lindblad master equation with a specified Hamiltonian and central-site dephasing, with no fitting parameters. The N=3 steady state is obtained by explicit time-dependent solution in Appendix A; the N=5 case is given in Appendix B; and the general-N X-state form is argued from the recursive steady-state equations plus the stated vanishing of off-diagonal elements and trace normalization. The hidden symmetry operator C is defined in Eq. (3) and its commutators with H0 and Nc are verified in the paper (footnote [54]), with Dutta and Cooper [36] cited only as the earlier context where such a hidden symmetry appeared, not as a substitute for the present derivation. Self-citations (e.g., refs. [1], [3], [7], [9], [20], [31]) are background or review references and are not load-bearing for the steady-state result. The concurrence values in Fig. 2 are computed from the derived correlation matrix, not fitted to the target entanglement. The main weaknesses are correctness risks rather than circularity: the general-N uniqueness and the vanishing of all off-diagonal elements are asserted rather than proved, and the multi-fermion relation ⟨f_i†f_j⟩∞^N = N⟨f_i†f_j⟩∞^sp is justified by a tensor-product factorization that is not valid for one-body fermionic operators. These are unsupported steps in the derivation, but they do not reduce the claimed prediction to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses known fermionic tight-binding Hamiltonians and standard Lindblad dissipation. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The free-parameter list is empty because the steady state is independent of the dephasing strength γ (for γ>0) and no data are fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Born-Markov approximation applies and the dynamics is governed by a Lindblad master equation.
    Introduced in Section II; the dephasing is modeled via the standard Lindblad form, which assumes weak coupling to a Markovian bath.
  • domain assumption Reflection symmetry about the central site is a strong symmetry of the Liouvillian.
    The paper notes [H0, R] = 0 and [N_c, R] = 0 in Section II; this is a property of the chosen model and is load-bearing for the parity-sector decomposition.
  • domain assumption The operator C = -1/2 + Σ_i f_i^† f_{L+1-i} is a strong symmetry, with [H0, C] = 0 and [N_c, C] = 0.
    Stated in Section II with a sketch in footnote [54]; this is essential for the multi-fermion sector selection and the claim of symmetry-protected pairs.
  • domain assumption For non-interacting fermions, the many-body steady-state correlation matrix is N times the single-particle correlation matrix when all N particles occupy even-parity modes.
    Used in Section II for the multi-fermion expectation values; the paper provides a one-sentence justification but not a full derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement-Induced Local Dephasing Generates Symmetrically Located Entangled Sites in a Fermionic Tight-Binding Lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63QPCA7H

@misc{pith2026241207876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement-Induced Local Dephasing Generates Symmetrically Located Entangled Sites in a Fermionic Tight-Binding Lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63QPCA7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07876}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate an odd-sized fermionic open tight-binding chain subjected to stochastic projective measurements at its central site, effectively inducing localized dephasing. Focusing initially on the single-particle regime, we demonstrate that when the system is prepared in an even-parity state, the dynamics under central-site dephasing drive it toward a nontrivial steady state, which we characterize through both analytical and numerical approaches. Remarkably, this steady state exhibits long-range quantum correlations in the form of symmetrically positioned, pairwise entangled sites across the chain. We further show that the degree of pairwise entanglement can be significantly enhanced by increasing the particle number, provided the system is initialized within a specific symmetry sector associated with an underlying strong symmetry operator. Our results identify a minimal measurement-induced route for generating symmetry-selected long-range pairwise entanglement, with possible implications for quantum communication and distributed quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) shows a schematic representation of the proposed setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. We show the staedy-state concurrence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. End-to-end correlation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) shows the end-to-end concurrence as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Constructive impact of Wannier-Stark field on environment-boosted quantum batteries

    quant-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Wannier-Stark field in the charger increases maximum power of Hubbard-model quantum batteries above a threshold, and can make bosonic batteries beat fermionic ones.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. S. Dhar, A. K. Pal, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Monogamy of quantum correlations-a review, Lectures on Gen- eral Quantum Correlations and Their Applications, pp. 23-64, Springer, Cham, (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    − γρ∞ 13 2 = 0, (ρ∞ 11 + ρ∞ 13 − ρ∞

    work page

  3. [3]

    Sadhukhan, S

    D. Sadhukhan, S. Singha Roy, D. Rakshit, R. Prabhu, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Quantum discord length is enhanced while entanglement length is not by introducing disorder in a spin chain, Phys. Rev. E 93, 012131 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Event-Ready-Detectors

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, “Event-Ready-Detectors” Bell Experiment via Entanglement Swapping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Osterloh, L

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci and R. Fazio, Scaling of entan- glement close to a quantum phase transition , Nature 416, 608 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    M. Popp, F. Verstraete, M. A. Mart ´ın-Delgado, and J. I. Cirac, Localizable entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042306 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Sadhukhan, S

    D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. K. Pal, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Multipartite entanglement accumulation in quan- tum states: Localizable generalized geometric measure , Phys. Rev. A 95, 022301 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    H. -J. Briegel, W. D ¨ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum Re- peaters: The Role of Imperfect Local Operations in Quantum Communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    H. S. Dhar, D. Rakshit, A. Sen De and Ujjwal Sen, Adiabatic freezing of long-range quantum correlations in spin chains, Eu- rophys. Lett. 114, 60007 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Ram ´ırez, J

    G. Ram ´ırez, J. R.-Laguna, G. Sierra, Entanglement over the rainbow, J. Stat. Mech. 2015, 06002 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    L. C. Venuti, C. D. E. Boschi, and M. Roncaglia,Long-Distance Entanglement in Spin Systems , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 247206 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    G. M. Palma, K.-A. Suominen, and A. K. Ekert, Quantum com- puters and dissipation, Proc. R. Soc. A 452, 567 (1996)

    1996

  5. [13]

    − γ ρ∞ 23 2 = 0, i(2ρ∞ 12 − ρ∞

  6. [14]

    Pocklington, Y

    A. Pocklington, Y . X. Wang, Y . Yanay, and A. A. Clerk, Stabi- lizing volume-law entangled states of fermions and qubits using local dissipation, Phys. Rev. B 105, L140301 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical—Revisited, Part of the book series: Prog. Math. Phys. 48, 1 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Buchleitner, C

    A. Buchleitner, C. Viviescas, M. Tiersch, Entanglement and Decoherence Foundations and Modern Trends , Springer, Berlin, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, England (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Krauter, C

    H. Krauter, C. A. Muschik, K. Jensen, W. Wasilewski, J. M. Petersen, J. I. Cirac, and E. S. Polzik, Entanglement Generated by Dissipation and Steady State Entanglement of Two Macro- scopic Objects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080503 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    M. B. Plenio and S. F. Huelga, Entangled Light from White Noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 197901 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Kraus, H

    B. Kraus, H. P. B ¨uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Preparation of entangled states by quantum Markov processes, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quantum Reservoir En- gineering with Laser Cooled Trapped Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  14. [22]

    (B1) It is then obvious that the upper half of the X-state is formed by following non-zero matrix elements: ρ∞ 11 = ρ∞ 15 = ρ∞ 22 = ρ∞ 24 = 1 /6

    + ρ∞ 33 = 1. (B1) It is then obvious that the upper half of the X-state is formed by following non-zero matrix elements: ρ∞ 11 = ρ∞ 15 = ρ∞ 22 = ρ∞ 24 = 1 /6. The lower half of the X-state is just a reflection of the upper half and the central density matrix element is ρ∞ 33 =...

  15. [23]

    G. Zhu, Y . Subas ¸ı, J. D. Whitfield, and M. Hafezi,Hardware- efficient fermionic simulation with a cavity–QED system , npj Quantum Inf. 4, 16 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    T. Ray, A. Ghoshal, D. Rakshit and U. Sen, Optimal quantum resource generation in coupled transmons immersed in Marko- vian baths, Phys. Rev. A 108, 052417 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Buchler, P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum sys- tems with cold atoms, Nature Physics, 4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    J. T. Barreiro, M. Mller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C. F. Roos, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions, Nature 470, 486 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    M ¨uller, S

    M. M ¨uller, S. Diehl, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller,Engineered open systems and quantum simulations with atoms and ions, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 61, 1 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    A. Rai, S. Das, and G. S. Agarwal, Quantum entanglement in coupled lossy waveguides, Optics Express 18, 6241 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    S. G. Schirmer and X. Wang, Stabilizing open quantum systems by Markovian reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. A 81, 062306 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Diehl, E

    S. Diehl, E. Rico, M. A. Baranov, and P. Zoller, Topology by dissipation in atomic quantum wires, Nat. Phys. 7, 971 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum computa- tion and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Zee and R

    A. Zee and R. Penrose, Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics , Princeton Science Library, Prince- ton, NJ, 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    Cariglia, Hidden symmetries of dynamics in classical and quantum physics, Rev

    M. Cariglia, Hidden symmetries of dynamics in classical and quantum physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1283 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    K. M. Daily, D. Rakshit, and D. Blume, Degeneracies in Trapped Two-Component Fermi Gases , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 030401 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Baumgartner and H

    B. Baumgartner and H. Narnhofer, Analysis of quantum semi- groups with GKS–Lindblad generators: II. General, J. Phys. A 41, 395303 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    V . V . Albert and L. Jiang,Symmetries and conserved quantities in Lindblad master equations, Phys. Rev. A89, 022118 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Bu ˆca and T

    B. Bu ˆca and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: Transport in constrained open spin chains, New J. Phys. 14, 073007 (2012). 7

    2012

  30. [38]

    V . V . Albert, B. Bradlyn, M. Fraas, and L. Jiang,Geometry and Response of Lindbladians, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041031 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Dutta and N

    S. Dutta and N. R. Cooper, Long-range coherence and multi- ple steady states in a lossy qubit array , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240404 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Dutta and N

    S. Dutta and N. R. Cooper, Out-of-equilibrium steady states of a locally driven lossy qubit array , Phys. Rev. Research 3, L012016 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Dutta, S

    S. Dutta, S. Kuhr, and N. R. Cooper, Generating symmetry- protected long-range entanglement , Phys. Rev. Research 6, L012039,(2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Manzano and P

    D. Manzano and P. I. Hurtado, Symmetry and the thermody- namics of currents in open quantum systems , Phys. Rev. B 90, 125138 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Thingna, D

    J. Thingna, D. Manzano, and J. Cao, Dynamical signatures of molecular symmetries in nonequilibrium quantum transport, Sci. Rep. 6, 28027 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Thingna, D

    J. Thingna, D. Manzano, and J. Cao, Magnetic field induced symmetry breaking in nonequilibrium quantum networks , New J. Phys. 22, 083026 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Ilievski and T

    E. Ilievski and T. Prosen, Exact steady state manifold of a boundary driven spin-1 Lai–Sutherland chain , Nucl. Phys. B882, 485 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Altman et

    E. Altman et. al, Quantum Simulators: Architectures and Op- portunities, PRX Quantum 2, 017003 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Breuer, F

    H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Sys- tems, Oxford University Press, 2007

    2007

  41. [49]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga,Open Quantum Systems An Introduction, Springer, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    H. -P. Breuer, E. -M. Laine, J. Piilo, B. Vacchini, Colloquium: Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Rivas, A

    A. Rivas, A. D. K. Plato, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Markovian master equations: a critical study, New J. Phys. 12, 113032 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Yago Malo, E

    J. Yago Malo, E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, M. H. Fischer, and A. J. Daley, Particle statistics and lossy dynamics of ultracold atoms in optical lattices , Phys. Rev. A 97, 053614 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quan- tum systems, Adv. Phys. 63, 77 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    H. P. L ¨uschen, P. Bordia, S. S. Hodgman, M. Schreiber, S. Sarkar,A. J. Daley, M. H. Fischer, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and U. Schneider, Signatures of Many-Body Localization in a Con- trolled Open Quantum System, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011034 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semi- groups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  48. [56]

    Gorini, A

    V . Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Com- pletely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems , J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  49. [57]

    ˆNc ˆC can be decom- posed as ˆNc ˆC = − ˆNc 2 + ˆf † c ˆfc PL i=1,i̸=c f † i fL+1−i + ˆNc ˆNc

    ˆNc commutes with ˆC, i.e., [ ˆNc, ˆC] = 0. ˆNc ˆC can be decom- posed as ˆNc ˆC = − ˆNc 2 + ˆf † c ˆfc PL i=1,i̸=c f † i fL+1−i + ˆNc ˆNc. Applying fermionic anti-commutation relation it is easy to show that the second term in the RHS can be rewritten as,PL i=1,i̸=c f † i fL+...

  50. [58]

    D. A. Lidar and K. B. Whaley, Decoherence-Free Subspaces and Subsystems: Irreversible Quantum Dynamics (Lecture Notes in Physics vol 622) Ed. F Benatti and R Floreanini (Berlin: Springer) pp 83–120 (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    Blume-Kohout, H

    R. Blume-Kohout, H. K. Ng, D. Poulin, and L. Viola, Char- acterizing the Structure of Preserved Information in Quantum Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 030501 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices , Phys

    A. Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters,Entanglement of a Pair of Quan- tum Bits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997)

    1997

  55. [63]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of Formation of an Arbitrary State of Two Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  56. [64]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  57. [65]

    Okane, H

    H. Okane, H. Hakoshima, Y . Takeuchi, Y . Seki, and Y . Mat- suzaki, Quantum remote sensing under the effect of dephasing, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062610 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Kukita, Y

    S. Kukita, Y . Matsuzaki, and Y . Kondo, Heisenberg-Limited Quantum Metrology Using Collective Dephasing , Phys. Rev. Applied 16, 064026 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.